The Delhi High Court has raised significant concerns over the credibility of Sunjay Kapur’s will, presented by his widow Priya Kapur. The court questioned the will’s inconsistencies, drafting errors, and the absence of proof linking Sunjay to the document.
Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Priya, argued that the errors in the will were copied from a ‘template’ based on Sunjay’s mother Rani Kapur’s will. However, the court pressed him on why a billionaire with vast assets would adopt an old template without correcting basic information about his own life and family.
The explanation also highlighted what the will leaves out:
- no inventory of Sunjay’s major assets
- no mention of his first two children, Samaira and Kiaan
- only Priya and her children, Safira and Azarius, named as beneficiaries
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani argued that this selective inclusion makes the will ‘a manufactured document tailored to benefit one side.’
Nayar’s justification for the misspelling of Azarius (‘Azarias’) – that it came from Rani’s will – raised further questions. Critics asked why parents would rely on a mother-in-law’s testamentary document to spell their own child’s name.
Sunjay’s sister Mandhira Kapur echoed these concerns publicly, saying, ‘My brother was a particular human being. He can’t misspell his son’s name. There is no email, message, instruction, or annotation linking Sunjay to the drafting process.’
While Sunjay’s name appears in the notary register for past documents – indicating he understood formal procedures – no such steps were taken for this will. The bench also clarified that a WhatsApp screenshot cannot be treated as proof of affirmation.
The defence invoked the Sanjay Kalra judgment, but the court observed that the case was decided after a full trial – unlike the interim stage here – and is currently under review by the Supreme Court.
Jethmalani argued that the issues in the Kapur will go well beyond minor mistakes and directly concern the question of who actually authored the document.
The plaintiffs have pointed to forensic analysis suggesting the will originated on a device not linked to Sunjay. Nayar’s explanation that the document was saved by employee Nitin Sharma does not address the absence of any digital trail connecting Sunjay to the will.
With the matter returning to court on Friday, Priya Kapur’s legal team faces growing pressure to address not just typographical issues but the broader question of whether the will was created – or approved – by Sunjay Kapur at all.
